The constraint-first angle matters more than people give it credit for. A 1-bit screen and a handful of buttons forces students to stop hiding behind art and sound, and actually solve readability and mechanics. Honestly surprised more programs do not do this instead of dropping students into Unity on day one.
Nintendo is the only mainstream game company that seems to understand this.
A good example is Elite Beat Agents was a fantastically fun rhythm game that could have only existed on the DS and 3DS with the little stylus pen.
You might think “the iPad has a stylus!” But it’s expensive (whereas my friend kept losing his DS Styluses so bought a pack of them for $10) and it doesn’t come with each iPad, so you’d have a fraction of a market, so no such game exists.
Having a CONSISTENT interface for your users is super important. A lot of game devs seem to go for fun second, or maybe never. It took years but just having a game controller seems to be a given for a lot of mainstream Steam games and it helps a lot with games that aren’t really great with a mouse and keyboard (Hollow Knight Silksong sold millions of copies at release)
If it is constraints you are after, you can look at fantasy consoles like TIC-80 and PICO-8.
They are designed to emulate the experience of 8 bit consoles: limited storage, memory, display, palette, etc... While at the same time making developing, distributing and playing games easy: high level language (LUA), built-in development environment, games are tens of kB sized "cartridge" files.
It's very difficult to overcome the push to teach the tools that will be used (or that out-of-touch people think will be used) professionally. We see the same issue in non-game programming where a lot of places start by teaching Java, which is an atrocious language for a beginner to start with, but it's not chosen for its suitability for learning programming principles, but because it's a big-name professional language.
HN readers who can write a console game before bedtime are not the target audience. A handheld device that Just Works and creates an authentic experience is worth a lot.
For a college class, a $200 textbook isn’t out of line (the ones people still buy…), which makes this a very reasonable investment in one’s education.
Are there other, cheaper routes? Of course. For an introduction? Fewer, and nobody wants to be told to use learn the principles using Scratch - even if that can actually work.
Making something real is inspiring, and this feels real.
That’s a very USA-centric view. 200$ for a textbook which will (often) only be used for a couple of chapters and was written by the professor shouldn’t be normal anywhere. The price of that book could pay for months (and in some cases years) of tuition in EU countries.
As someone from the EU who was always curious about the Playdate, I never got one because the price becomes even more absurd once you factor shipping and taxes. It easily goes to double or more. I wish Panic all the luck with the console, but I think we can agree that paying Switch 2 / PlayStation 5 prices for one is hard to justify.
There’s no discussion of price point in the article. There is in this thread, so one can only deduce that when the OP said “Re: price point” they are answering the thread, not the article.
And not everyone on HN is in Duke, or North Carolina, or the USA.
> more than 50 Playdates have been provided to students
Provided. To me that doesn’t seem like the students are paying for them. From other comments in the thread of former Duke students using iPods, it seems Duke lends you the hardware.
Furthermore, “tuition is expensive so buying expensive hardware is the least of your problems” is not a good argument. There’s a reason people in the USA drown in student debt. Whatever you can save is good.
They aren't drowning in debt because of supplies, they're drowning in debt because both the federal + state governments have stopped investing in education since the GFC in 2008. That plus a bloated admin body that cares about itself more than its literal mission (providing education + research).
> The price of that book could pay for months (and in some cases years) of tuition in EU countries.
To your later comment, the devices are provided. You dont need to buy them.
Also that's not actual price. the tuition fees are that, doesn't mean that's the price. It's just heavily subsizied by the government. Hard to find sources, but the actual price/student in Germany seems to be ~10k Euro/student/year.
> the devices are provided. You dont need to buy them.
I was talking about a textbook, not the devices. I think that was made pretty clear by my use of the word “textbook”.
> the tuition fees are that, doesn't mean that's the price.
Seeing as I’m talking about what people have to pay, that’s irrelevant. What even is your comment? You’re taking what I said and responding to entirely different things. That’s not how we have a productive, good faith conversation.
> Hard to find sources, but the actual price/student in Germany seems to be ~10k Euro/student/year.
There are more countries in the EU besides Germany. In some, you don’t pay at all.
Furthermore, each college has different costs, there’s not just a fixed cost for student for everything. The costs per student for philosophy are not the comparable to the costs per student for veterinary medicine.
Like I said, I’m factoring in the price when you include shipping and taxes to Europe. If I wanted to buy a Playdate, it’d cost me close to the price of those consoles here.
What are the statistics on this? There are about 500k professors in the US, and they make up about 1/3 of college teachers. Also, most academics would object to this situation, so it's not apparently OK. There's a growing movement towards open-sourcing textbooks or replacing them with other kinds of online materials.
Don't get me wrong, I think that college education is due for reform.
There are examples of finding better ways to do it. My son's textbook costs were very low. The regional state university that he attended had some kind of thing where you rented your textbooks and turned them back in, often with a nominal or zero fee.
One professor at my poorly subsidized state uni who had a book he required for class was $180 or so. He had enough (spiral bound Xeroxed) copies in the library for everyone to borrow for the semester. Or you could buy a shiny new one from the bookstore or online at full fare. Another gave the classes copies of the chapters.
For an advanced course that is how the economics works out. They are expensive to produce and have limited demand, and typically only for a few years until they are replaced.
Yes, but this is intentional, and that's what's out of line. The main content stays the same but exercises and case studies are rotated out to force an upgrade.
The business strategy class I took in college in Ireland used the same book for two or three years, even though the book was reshuffled every year, just to enable some spreading of the financial burden on students.
At least in some fields, advanced courses are the most likely to have lower cost textbooks. Real analysis textbooks are usually cheaper than calculus textbooks. It's the introductory courses that tend to have $200 behemoths attached to online homework platforms optimized for ease of grading rather than student learning.
I love Anna but it's also a poor school that doesn't have its own library that has at least a few copies of every textbook used by classes + inter-library loans. Can be a nice way to make friends by sharing a physical book to study and do exercises from in a shared workspace.
As an educator I always make a point to give the resources to the students and or give avenues to it that are not paywalled.
Knowledge is the only resource that only becomes greater the more is shared because people share back what they learned. Mind you this only works if people are paying it forward. But often the educator gets more from teaching than the student does.
There are plenty of free or cheaper alternatives, although platforms like pico-8 are (intentionally) hard to work with, especially as a first introduction to building games and / or coding.
ArduBoy ($99) [1] comes to mind. But your point is taken.
Also Playdate claims there are educational discounts, so I suspect students aren't paying $199 (or is it a little over $200?). (EDIT: another comment suggested $195 is the student discount—ouch!)
Having made multiple (dare I say) fairly successful games on the Playdate, I can attest to how fantastic the developer experience has been and how easy it was for my non dev collaborators to get going. Pulp was a great in road for them to get started with game dev, and it's been a blast (despite how limiting Pulpscript is for a professional dev)
I'm genuinely curious: do you mean successful as "played a lot" or as "commercially successful"? Do you think Playdate is a viable market for indie devs? Btw it'd also be great to check your games, if you'd like to share some links!
The challenge with Playdate games is that it's a relatively niche market; the number of consoles sold is... probably more than 100K at this point but less than a million (https://x.com/playdate/status/1757478578491732486), of which only a percentage will buy games in addition to the "free" ones.
I suspect any developer whose game gets picked for the "free" games will get a compensation, but I have no idea how much that would be. This link https://x.com/playdate/status/1757478578491732486 suggests that two years ago, all Catalog developers (so not the free games) earned about 500K total / shared amongst each other.
TL;DR: by all means make games for the Playdate but not if you want to make it your livelihood. Personal grumpy take, not based in up to date facts.
My 9 year old is doing a game dev course in town where they use the BBC Micro Bit, a retro arcade peripheral (buttons, screen, sound, handheld), and some Microsoft game dev IDE. It’s incredibly compelling and feels a lot like this. But less than 1/3 the price and much more extensible and well-featured (the screen is colour!). I’m not sure I really see the value of the Playdate.
My boys (then 10 and 8) loved MakeCode Arcade. I promised that if they wrote an original game - rather than following the great tutorials - then I'd make them a physical setup with a Pi Zero and some classic arcade buttons. They were very motivated and learned a lot.
Playdate development has been a great experience. The limited colors and RAM helps me reduce my project scope such that I would actually finish them, and the limited CPU makes optimization exercises more rewarding. And it's not just all constraints either -- the sound/synth system is quite nice, and the crank is fun input method that takes some hands-on experience to fully appreciate.
The only downside is that there are still relatively few people with Playdates, and that puts an upperbound on how many people get to play your games.
you can run playdate games on the desktop using the emulator included in the free SDK. It won't be as fun as running it on an actual device, but nothing stopping people from actually messing with making playdate games without a playdate.
ah I guess I sort of elided actually... saying the point I was trying to make. If it's just about showing games off to your friends (which with a course like this is pretty likely) you can point them to the emulator.
yeah if you're aiming to make a proper professional game with aims of making profit... the playdate probably isn't the way to go. But then I recon that's part of what makes it an awesome platform. It hasn't been captured by capitalism yet.
Everyone is talking about the Playdate but I have a related Duke story about undergrad classes incorporating new hardware. My Digital Signal Processing course (ECE major) made a big deal about using these new things called iPods for class. Everyone got an iPod... for the semester. Even at Duke tuition prices you only got to borrow it. My recollection of the class work part was using a little piezo sensor that plugged into the microphone/headphone jack and recording your heart beat as a voice memo while doing a couple different activities. Maybe ten minutes for the semester. Then back at the computer doing a FFT to determine your heart rate. The lazy kids just got a copy of someone else's recording. This would have been 2004 or 2005. I think it was the third generation with clickwheel and monochrome screen.
I just got The Moon Is Our Friend and I think it's a perfect Playdate game, at least for the kind of games I like to play on it (I don't care much for the more RPG/story-driven stuff). It's addicting, and it uses the crank in a way that makes the crank feel indispensable.
I also discovered the Mirror app and it turns out it's a big deal for me! I love the form factor of the device and I'm fine with a black and white concept, but the combination of screen size and the lack of a backlight does take some enjoyment out of it all that Mirror gave back.
The Playdate looks like what you'd make if someone only described the games kids made and shared on the TI-83 graphing calculator and then asked you to build a device.
It fits, in my head, very much in that same toy niche as Teenage Engineering's Pocket Operator series of music making devices: https://teenage.engineering/products/po
He's wrong. There are some great games that I've played on it. And I'm a Millennial dad. AND I think Panic is a cool company that's worth supporting, AND I think that, if you have the money sitting around, it's probably good to support weird niche hardware projects by indies.
Sometimes I concede on this point with certain devices, but the screen on the playdate basically requires light at a specific angle for it to be at all discernible, so I don't blame you and can't recommend it as a result
I love the aesthetic of the playdate, the educational outreach, and how easy the whole platform is. It’s just so well designed all around. But the only way I am able to play it is by casting the screen to my computer, the screen is so tiny. Otherwise, I love it.
The Playdate seems an ideal device for busy dads and mums who would pick it up to play a few games here and there and
are into programming and maybe would like to teach their kids how to program. I've had a quick play with the tools and API Panic provides and they seem very, very good. The games on it seem to be ideal for short stints of gameplay and are made by some very creative folk.
This seems to be the ideal target audience for a device like this, however at around £250 including delivery here in the UK it's wildly expensive and falls well outside the 'frivolous expense once in a while' range for most parents (I'd say it would be a stretch at £150). I find that really strange, are these just economies of scale or is it a business decision Panic has made and now likely regrets?
The Playdate is... limited though; it's very small, much smaller than e.g. the gameboy or DS, so it's not particularly ergonomic. Fine for playing around with on occasion, but it's not a platform for spending long hours with. And it made the same mistake as the GBA did - no backlight.
It does not feel like good value for money. But then, it's positioned as a niche / quirky device, manufactured in batches once a year or so, not a mass market device.
I do hope they build a follow-up some day though - make it twice as big (at least), add a backlight, make turning it off more obvious, and give more clarity about the availability and cost of games.
For a Masters program it's pretty weird but I assume prospective students will be aware, and they move on to learning Unreal, so...
It's always struck me as a bit silly how so many schools use some very niche tooling as part of "simplifying" or "adding constraints". I would have thought that such stuff was kept at the undergrad level. Even DigiPen (where the "famous" undergrad CS-like degree has you writing your own engine (though used to also have an elective for GBA games)) has a separate newer game design degree that had classes mandating some crappy in-house engine or in later years joining teams with students from the other degrees and using someone's custom engine. When I was there, a friend was able to get a professor's exception one semester and allowed to use a mobile-first engine that got out of the way and let him design while also making it easy to add polish, easy to playtest and develop (it used Lua) and show or give to others since everyone has a phone, etc. The crappy in-house engine stymied the efforts of everyone else, and only ran on Windows. It took a while longer before the formal curriculum had other students allowed to move beyond the in-house crap to consider things like the entire field of mobile games and mobile design, VR games and design, and eventually learning industry-standard tooling that employers will expect familiarity with. (I think the courtesy of using an industry engine was extended to the main degree program too vs. continuing with a custom one; I'm not sure what ratio Unreal/Unity/Godot/other/custom have there these days.) And while last I've heard an in-house engine is still used at the beginning (and even replaced the second semester "make a game in pure C with only the Windows text console for 'rendering'" project), it's a rewrite of a successor and apparently isn't as crappy now.
For the Playdate itself, I've never seen the appeal... I have no interest in going back to that sort of screen. My Game Boy Color, besides having color, also allowed me to have a wormlight attachment plugged in to make up somewhat for not having a backlight. I don't think the Playdate has support for that. And the price...
The article makes it quite clear as you read that the appeal is the constraints, it allows the students to think outside of the box, and ask themselves a lot of interesting questions
That's the intention, sure, and as long as prospective Masters students know that's what they're getting into and paying for, and are looking forward to it, then it's fine or whatever. But it still strikes me as a silly constraint, just as it would be to require an in-house engine that sucks, or requiring students to develop for some old Nintendo hardware, or requiring students to fit everything in under 96k.[0] Anyone can add arbitrary constraints to anything, and lots of interesting questions will arise from figuring out how to deal with (or work around) such constraints. But is the constraint to develop for this specific device (and all the sub constraints that implies) actually a good one vs. any other set of constraints, especially for the purposes of game design? I doubt it. Especially how some of the constraints like only using black-and-white graphics are easily enforced without also requiring such a specific niche device.
[0] .kkrieger (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NBG-sKFaB0) is my favorite of this genre of constraints, but it's mainly impressive for being possible at all (and you can read up on some of the developer notes for how much effort was put into satisfying this constraint). It didn't actually advance the design of FPSes or anything, and FPS design ideas could be better learned by making and iterating on an FPS without the tiny size constraint. If students want to impose extra constraints on themselves, like developing for the Playdate and making use of its crank for game control, go for it, but it's a bit different when they're imposed from the outside for no real reason other than "hey, it's some constraints, and constraints breed creativity".
No, because the goal of the university is to teach students to think. Not necessarily just to "acquire the skills to apply in industry". Constraints are great for that.
So is teaching them assembly, even though most people no longer directly code in ASM. But a constrained language that's close-to-the-metal gives them an interesting view of how computing really works, etc
So I'd say it's actually much better for a class teaching coding and creativity
This is part of a 2 year Masters program focused on Game Design, Development & Innovation, costing a student $113,000 to pursue. If a student enrolls in it without already having learned how to think, this is not the program that is going to teach that. Surely any competent school can teach students how to think within the first year, if they do not already know how to think, leaving the rest of the years (and any Masters or PhD programs) able to assume that the students already know how to think and thus save the time to teach actual content.
If students sign up and pay for a class you teach called "Data Structures & Algorithms", and you just read from Hamming's book every lecture and don't actually attempt to teach any data structures and algorithms, expect to not have a teaching job for long.
If it's so easy, all the better. You can learn to build great architecture, optimize resources, and create a creative game all while also using Unity. There are additional bonuses to this beyond the pure knowledge too.
I mean it's all there in the text... it's for the introductory class "in an introductory class focused on game design fundamentals, students can’t afford a long learning curve."
I ran a design school for eight years where fourteen-year-olds built real projects—wearable medical devices, robotic systems, public art installations—in two-week studio cycles. No grades, portfolio-based assessment, and a structured constraint I designed that did exactly what the Playdate is doing here.
It was a two-sentence writing assignment. Before you could describe your project, you had to state the idea in one sentence (the soul) and the concrete form in one sentence (the body). Kids who could prototype a working medical device in two weeks couldn't articulate what they'd built. The constraint forced the thinking the tool couldn't.
Jach's argument—"you could impose the same constraints on Unity"—misses the point. You could. Nobody does. The tool shapes the behavior. An engine that can do anything invites you to do everything. Or, for young people, nothing. A 1-bit screen with a crank asks you one question: what's the game? That's not an arbitrary constraint. That's a design decision about where the student's cognitive effort goes.
The expensive tool teaches the tool. The constrained tool teaches the thinking. They're both necessary but they serve different stages, and most programs only do the first one.
For teaching, it depends a lot on what you’re trying to teach. In some courses I’m involved in we’re intentionally using old, limited, obtuse or otherwise just strange tools and equipment for the sake of practicing debugging, reading specs approaching an unknown system. The point of those courses is not to learn the tool itself but to learn methodology that can be generalised.
As I said however, it depends on when in the timeline we’re looking. For 3-year bachelor’s programmes, there’s significantly more focus on producing graduates who can move straight into the industry, having already learnt the tools they will use. For theoretical 5-year master’s programmes, knowing specific hardware or software is secondary to the general reasoning, maths and planning that’s expected in research or R&D industry work.
Using more limited or restricted tools, if thought out well, can force students focus on the parts that matter. I haven’t actually used the Playdate, but for first-year students I would think the most important thing is to actually get to designing games. The core ideas you’d want to teach do not require fancy graphics or platform support, rather, that’d just be a time sink. Learning industry tools can be done in later courses or on the job. While being able to work efficiently is important - I don’t want to discredit the handiwork of the process, learning what buttons to push in eg. Unreal is arguably much less ephemeral than learning ”game design”.
However, using limited tools in teaching must be well motivated. Forcing old, obsolete tech onto students might be a learning experience just as well as a time sink.
I've thought something like a software archeology class would be really fun as an elective. I agree that it can make sense to use intentionally limited things especially if something is hard to teach otherwise. e.g. Learning to parse datasheets and probe things with an oscilloscope is best done by actually doing it, but starting off with an n-layer PCB instead of a breadboard would be pretty crazy. A benefit to using old things can sometimes be useful simplicity but also sometimes just being cheap. There's also a lot of interesting (if often commercially and methodologically irrelevant these days) things to teach as a matter of history.
I agree it all needs to be well motivated. I'm often suspicious of attempts to teach things indirectly, but of course a lot of indirect learning happens anyway. And a lot (direct and indirect) is done in parallel and I think it's useful to look for places to usefully exploit that, especially when it comes to the conflict of college for pre-job-training vs. study. Do you really need a limited or obscure platform to teach or practice most things about debugging? printf and any debugger tool that supports break points and stepping would teach a lot, with modern (even graphical) tools having a lot less friction while not dampening what is learned. Bonus points if you actually teach more advanced debuggers so another generation of developers isn't released thinking only-the-basics console gdb + printf are the extent of what's available to help in the practice of debugging. A danger of only teaching limited or restricted tools is that students end up thinking that's all there is. This happens at every level from sorting algorithms to programming languages to whole ways of thinking about things. By artificially constraining the box in an attempt to focus on something basic or avoid clichés of other boxes, all too often the result is just that thinking doesn't generalize and is now crippled in the constrained box.
Timeline is important, I wonder if we're both interpreting Master's program quite differently here. In the US, a Bachelors program is typically 4 years while a Masters is typically 2, and many Masters are industry-oriented (no thesis, just classes/projects) rather than being like a stepping stone to full PhD research. The Duke program here seems to work as typical: 2 years + capstone project (and even seeming to require a summer internship). A longer program is in some ways a bit more forgivable for less than ideal teaching efficiency. (At my old school, the game design undergrads had a course that required designing physical board games. There are plausible arguments that board games as a medium make it easier to teach or focus on important things in design that are harder to teach with digital video games. But even if that's not really true (as I'm arguing here applies to the Playdate not being particularly useful over just normal PC/mobile development) at least it's just one course in many for the whole program. And at least there's a >$10bn market for board games.)
The Playdate features a mic, accelerometer, and crank as unique inputs, as well as being portable, that can suggest interesting game design ideas on their own. In one sense, if you want to use those features, it's simpler because you can count on them being there. In another sense, except for I guess the crank, the other two inputs are part of ~every phone and widely available on any PC/laptop. Developing for PC or mobile gives you access to even more interesting input and output for design consideration too: keyboards, mice (with/without scrollwheels), cameras, haptic feedback, gyroscopes, touch, light or temperature sensors, weird whatever devices over USB or wireless (Nintendo wiimotes, steering wheels, arcade sticks), networking... and making use of these things has never been easier, with drivers widely available and especially with the engines that let you click around to configure things. I would think that if your goal is to learn game design, you would want to prioritize doing your design on a platform that is as open and flexible as possible to allow exploring as much of design space as you can. Perhaps the teacher thinks it's useful to add artificial constraints to narrow the design space or focus from a certain perspective (like: let's design a multiplayer game, but with the constraint that you have only one device, no networking or multiple controllers), fine, but they don't need to start with a platform where those constraints are baked in to start with and can't be lifted.
Similarly Unreal as well as any of the other popular engines, along with any of the libraries like DirectX, SDL, raylib, pygame, or even just the web browser with HTML Canvas, are all open and flexible in what they allow you to explore in design space. Some are more limited than others (like you're going to have a hard time using a 2D-focused library or engine for a 3D game) and some are easier to express ideas in than others (you're going to have a better time using a 2D-focused library or engine for a 2D game) but they're all pretty easy to express basics in, and they all are pretty good at letting you rapidly prototype and playtest and iterate. If you artificially impose on yourself the same constraints as the Playdate has inherently, they can be even easier to use, and even easier yet if the teacher provides a template. Like browse the games on itch.io tagged with playdate, I don't think any would be particularly harder (and some may even be easier) to do in <random other tooling>. The article mentions it taking "months" to learn Unreal, which is true in some sense (it can be longer, especially if you don't already know C++), but false in another sense in that getting up and running is quick, any competent introduction will have the student getting something on screen and responding to their input within an hour. For the very basic stuff a typical Playdate game does it won't take that long to learn to do it with Unreal.
Another way of looking at it: take the "Owl Invasion" example from the article, "an endless wave-based action game with tower defense mechanics." Unlike the other game, there's no mention of using any of the unique inputs of the Playdate, so is there anything fundamentally unique about the Playdate that suggests such a game would be easier to develop for it vs. using an arbitrary other tool? Was there anything learned about game design from the experience that wouldn't have been learned otherwise? What if you had mandated the same visual constraints for resolution and (lack of) color but artificially? Was it useful to be forced to incorporate an owl somehow, vs. a rat, vs. a pirate, vs. having no restrictions? (This one perhaps, even creative writing workshops like to require something to incorporate, but this is more about trying to unblock creativity and avoid decision paralysis rather than directly learning some principle.) If the impact of using Playdate vs. something else is fairly arbitrary for accomplishing the teaching goals, then unless the student is particularly interested in Playdate on their own, it's more beneficial among several axes to use something else.
Panic had a booth at Portland Retro Gaming Expo last year, they were super nice and the Playdates were a lot of fun to play with. Nice to see that people are continuing to enjoy the console, the production process seemed like a nightmare.
Pretty much all playdate games could just be enjoyed in the browser. The only thing you're missing is the physical crank and honestly it's a little gimmicky.
I've been interested in these cute little things since they were first announced, but I still haven't pulled the trigger on the 229 USD price tag. Apparently with the education discount they're 195 USD, which still feels steep. But hey, given that the dev tooling is all free (including simulators), it would be fine to play around with game development even without buying the hardware.
I played with mine for a couple months, put it down for a year, and played it for a couple more months recently. There are some good games and the device just oozes fun, I haven’t regretted it
I'm not familiar with their marketing/ecosystem. Do they gather together the best games and have a whole "season" you purchase? And repeat this every year?
They got a bunch of well known developers to build a collection of games, and deliver them to Playdate devices via wifi at a pace of 2 games per week (unless you choose to skip ahead). Season one is included with the device itself, so if you even if you didn't buy or sideload any other games, you still get new games for 3 months. Season two was $39 for 12 games.
You can choose not to look up which games are included in the season and just be surprised by new games every week, and that kept the console feeling fresh. But the really brilliant part is that you got to experience the new games together with other people who got the season at the same time as you, similar to people watching the same weekly broadcast of some TV show. I find this community aspect of the experience most interesting.
Yeah, I've thought about buying one in the past, but $229 is kind of rich for my blood.
I bought an ODROID-Go Ultra a few months ago for about $70. This can emulate the NES, SNES, Genesis, Game Boy, and oodles of other consoles, and can play what are arguably some of the best games ever made. The Playdate is three times that price, and while I'm sure that some of the games are fun, I would have a hard time believing that any of them are beating Donkey Kong Country or Phantasy Star IV.
It might be an apples and oranges comparison, but in my mind they still occupy a similar niche.
Yea, it's not custom hardware, but you can share your creations with everyone since it runs on Web, Mac, Windows, Linux, Android, iOS and there are lots of cheaper devices that will run it if you want a handheld.
It's actually worth it if you have any kind of a commute. There are a lot of very fun games for it. And it's nice having a thing that isn't connected to the Internet to avoid the temptation of doom scrolling.
I bought mine pre release so it was like $50 cheaper even with the cover I think, but I would still pay the increased price for it. I thought it would collect dust, but it really is a great way to pass the time on the train. It scratches the original Gameboy itch for me without the needless stares from actually carrying a Gameboy.
I just wish they would release the docking station for it. I charge it next to my bed, so it could serve two purposes.
The constraint-first angle matters more than people give it credit for. A 1-bit screen and a handful of buttons forces students to stop hiding behind art and sound, and actually solve readability and mechanics. Honestly surprised more programs do not do this instead of dropping students into Unity on day one.
Nintendo is the only mainstream game company that seems to understand this.
A good example is Elite Beat Agents was a fantastically fun rhythm game that could have only existed on the DS and 3DS with the little stylus pen.
You might think “the iPad has a stylus!” But it’s expensive (whereas my friend kept losing his DS Styluses so bought a pack of them for $10) and it doesn’t come with each iPad, so you’d have a fraction of a market, so no such game exists.
Having a CONSISTENT interface for your users is super important. A lot of game devs seem to go for fun second, or maybe never. It took years but just having a game controller seems to be a given for a lot of mainstream Steam games and it helps a lot with games that aren’t really great with a mouse and keyboard (Hollow Knight Silksong sold millions of copies at release)
Elite Beat Agents lives on as osu! which can be played using a mouse or drawing tablet
If it is constraints you are after, you can look at fantasy consoles like TIC-80 and PICO-8.
They are designed to emulate the experience of 8 bit consoles: limited storage, memory, display, palette, etc... While at the same time making developing, distributing and playing games easy: high level language (LUA), built-in development environment, games are tens of kB sized "cartridge" files.
It's very difficult to overcome the push to teach the tools that will be used (or that out-of-touch people think will be used) professionally. We see the same issue in non-game programming where a lot of places start by teaching Java, which is an atrocious language for a beginner to start with, but it's not chosen for its suitability for learning programming principles, but because it's a big-name professional language.
Wow, this is an LLM comment and people ate it up.
Re: price point
HN readers who can write a console game before bedtime are not the target audience. A handheld device that Just Works and creates an authentic experience is worth a lot.
For a college class, a $200 textbook isn’t out of line (the ones people still buy…), which makes this a very reasonable investment in one’s education.
Are there other, cheaper routes? Of course. For an introduction? Fewer, and nobody wants to be told to use learn the principles using Scratch - even if that can actually work.
Making something real is inspiring, and this feels real.
That’s a very USA-centric view. 200$ for a textbook which will (often) only be used for a couple of chapters and was written by the professor shouldn’t be normal anywhere. The price of that book could pay for months (and in some cases years) of tuition in EU countries.
As someone from the EU who was always curious about the Playdate, I never got one because the price becomes even more absurd once you factor shipping and taxes. It easily goes to double or more. I wish Panic all the luck with the console, but I think we can agree that paying Switch 2 / PlayStation 5 prices for one is hard to justify.
Duke University is, in fact, in North Carolina, USA.
There’s no discussion of price point in the article. There is in this thread, so one can only deduce that when the OP said “Re: price point” they are answering the thread, not the article.
And not everyone on HN is in Duke, or North Carolina, or the USA.
Tuition at Duke is 70k per year.
Buying a game system is the least of your problems there
Again, that’s not the discussion. See my reply over two hours ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47804719
Additionally, the page says:
> more than 50 Playdates have been provided to students
Provided. To me that doesn’t seem like the students are paying for them. From other comments in the thread of former Duke students using iPods, it seems Duke lends you the hardware.
Furthermore, “tuition is expensive so buying expensive hardware is the least of your problems” is not a good argument. There’s a reason people in the USA drown in student debt. Whatever you can save is good.
They aren't drowning in debt because of supplies, they're drowning in debt because both the federal + state governments have stopped investing in education since the GFC in 2008. That plus a bloated admin body that cares about itself more than its literal mission (providing education + research).
> The price of that book could pay for months (and in some cases years) of tuition in EU countries.
What happens in magical places with free or heavily subsidized college has little to do with what an expensive private US university does.
If a German college decides 200$ is too much they can use Godot or a variety of free alternatives.
> The price of that book could pay for months (and in some cases years) of tuition in EU countries.
To your later comment, the devices are provided. You dont need to buy them.
Also that's not actual price. the tuition fees are that, doesn't mean that's the price. It's just heavily subsizied by the government. Hard to find sources, but the actual price/student in Germany seems to be ~10k Euro/student/year.
Hard to find
> the devices are provided. You dont need to buy them.
I was talking about a textbook, not the devices. I think that was made pretty clear by my use of the word “textbook”.
> the tuition fees are that, doesn't mean that's the price.
Seeing as I’m talking about what people have to pay, that’s irrelevant. What even is your comment? You’re taking what I said and responding to entirely different things. That’s not how we have a productive, good faith conversation.
> Hard to find sources, but the actual price/student in Germany seems to be ~10k Euro/student/year.
There are more countries in the EU besides Germany. In some, you don’t pay at all.
Furthermore, each college has different costs, there’s not just a fixed cost for student for everything. The costs per student for philosophy are not the comparable to the costs per student for veterinary medicine.
A Playdate is $229. A Switch 2 is $499 and a PS5 is $599
Like I said, I’m factoring in the price when you include shipping and taxes to Europe. If I wanted to buy a Playdate, it’d cost me close to the price of those consoles here.
It's not just the price of the console itself as mentioned in the article. Things like the Playstation and Xbox require a *very* expensive SDK.
Playdate's SDK is free.
A $200 textbook should absolutely be out of line
Professors making students buy the textbook they wrote for $200 is especially out of line.
In any other industry they call this corruption, but in academia it’s apparently ok.
What are the statistics on this? There are about 500k professors in the US, and they make up about 1/3 of college teachers. Also, most academics would object to this situation, so it's not apparently OK. There's a growing movement towards open-sourcing textbooks or replacing them with other kinds of online materials.
Don't get me wrong, I think that college education is due for reform.
There are examples of finding better ways to do it. My son's textbook costs were very low. The regional state university that he attended had some kind of thing where you rented your textbooks and turned them back in, often with a nominal or zero fee.
One professor at my poorly subsidized state uni who had a book he required for class was $180 or so. He had enough (spiral bound Xeroxed) copies in the library for everyone to borrow for the semester. Or you could buy a shiny new one from the bookstore or online at full fare. Another gave the classes copies of the chapters.
For an advanced course that is how the economics works out. They are expensive to produce and have limited demand, and typically only for a few years until they are replaced.
Yes, but this is intentional, and that's what's out of line. The main content stays the same but exercises and case studies are rotated out to force an upgrade.
The business strategy class I took in college in Ireland used the same book for two or three years, even though the book was reshuffled every year, just to enable some spreading of the financial burden on students.
At least in some fields, advanced courses are the most likely to have lower cost textbooks. Real analysis textbooks are usually cheaper than calculus textbooks. It's the introductory courses that tend to have $200 behemoths attached to online homework platforms optimized for ease of grading rather than student learning.
Anna has an archive for students who can't afford books.
I love Anna but it's also a poor school that doesn't have its own library that has at least a few copies of every textbook used by classes + inter-library loans. Can be a nice way to make friends by sharing a physical book to study and do exercises from in a shared workspace.
I wouldn't have passed college of it weren't for sharing textbooks at the science library and making friends to study with!
In this era of abundance, it's ridiculous for students to be sharing textbooks.
As an educator I always make a point to give the resources to the students and or give avenues to it that are not paywalled.
Knowledge is the only resource that only becomes greater the more is shared because people share back what they learned. Mind you this only works if people are paying it forward. But often the educator gets more from teaching than the student does.
The article mentions you can use the free PC/Mac simulator which doesn't require a device
There are plenty of free or cheaper alternatives, although platforms like pico-8 are (intentionally) hard to work with, especially as a first introduction to building games and / or coding.
Is pico-8 hard to work with?
No, but it has a lot of very intentional limitations
ArduBoy ($99) [1] comes to mind. But your point is taken.
Also Playdate claims there are educational discounts, so I suspect students aren't paying $199 (or is it a little over $200?). (EDIT: another comment suggested $195 is the student discount—ouch!)
[1] https://www.arduboy.com
> A handheld device that Just Works and creates an authentic experience is worth a lot.
yeah, it's worth around $64.79 current price
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x_PmVHiQNHyw5t05peED...
...
It's not the format, there are cheaper, more open and more easily shared formats. It's the Developer Experience of the Playdate.
Having made multiple (dare I say) fairly successful games on the Playdate, I can attest to how fantastic the developer experience has been and how easy it was for my non dev collaborators to get going. Pulp was a great in road for them to get started with game dev, and it's been a blast (despite how limiting Pulpscript is for a professional dev)
I'm genuinely curious: do you mean successful as "played a lot" or as "commercially successful"? Do you think Playdate is a viable market for indie devs? Btw it'd also be great to check your games, if you'd like to share some links!
The challenge with Playdate games is that it's a relatively niche market; the number of consoles sold is... probably more than 100K at this point but less than a million (https://x.com/playdate/status/1757478578491732486), of which only a percentage will buy games in addition to the "free" ones.
I suspect any developer whose game gets picked for the "free" games will get a compensation, but I have no idea how much that would be. This link https://x.com/playdate/status/1757478578491732486 suggests that two years ago, all Catalog developers (so not the free games) earned about 500K total / shared amongst each other.
TL;DR: by all means make games for the Playdate but not if you want to make it your livelihood. Personal grumpy take, not based in up to date facts.
My 9 year old is doing a game dev course in town where they use the BBC Micro Bit, a retro arcade peripheral (buttons, screen, sound, handheld), and some Microsoft game dev IDE. It’s incredibly compelling and feels a lot like this. But less than 1/3 the price and much more extensible and well-featured (the screen is colour!). I’m not sure I really see the value of the Playdate.
That sounds rad. I’d love to get my kids into this. Got any links to your particular setup?
The game dev environment they’re talking about is MakeCode Arcade. I’m also a big fan of it.
There are a number of little handheld gadgets that you can use with MakeCode—scroll down on the homepage and there’s a section that shows them all:
https://arcade.makecode.com/
Yeah that’s it! I recognize the Micro Bit Arcade Shield and the Retro Arcade as what he’s been using when he shows me demos.
I LOVE that he gets to code in Scratch but can jump into Python or JavaScript at any time without the IDE changing. It’s a clear stepping stone.
My boys (then 10 and 8) loved MakeCode Arcade. I promised that if they wrote an original game - rather than following the great tutorials - then I'd make them a physical setup with a Pi Zero and some classic arcade buttons. They were very motivated and learned a lot.
Playdate development has been a great experience. The limited colors and RAM helps me reduce my project scope such that I would actually finish them, and the limited CPU makes optimization exercises more rewarding. And it's not just all constraints either -- the sound/synth system is quite nice, and the crank is fun input method that takes some hands-on experience to fully appreciate.
The only downside is that there are still relatively few people with Playdates, and that puts an upperbound on how many people get to play your games.
you can run playdate games on the desktop using the emulator included in the free SDK. It won't be as fun as running it on an actual device, but nothing stopping people from actually messing with making playdate games without a playdate.
I'd imagine they know as they developed games for it. Their point was the audience size due to it being niche, not that it's hard to test.
ah I guess I sort of elided actually... saying the point I was trying to make. If it's just about showing games off to your friends (which with a course like this is pretty likely) you can point them to the emulator.
yeah if you're aiming to make a proper professional game with aims of making profit... the playdate probably isn't the way to go. But then I recon that's part of what makes it an awesome platform. It hasn't been captured by capitalism yet.
Everyone is talking about the Playdate but I have a related Duke story about undergrad classes incorporating new hardware. My Digital Signal Processing course (ECE major) made a big deal about using these new things called iPods for class. Everyone got an iPod... for the semester. Even at Duke tuition prices you only got to borrow it. My recollection of the class work part was using a little piezo sensor that plugged into the microphone/headphone jack and recording your heart beat as a voice memo while doing a couple different activities. Maybe ten minutes for the semester. Then back at the computer doing a FFT to determine your heart rate. The lazy kids just got a copy of someone else's recording. This would have been 2004 or 2005. I think it was the third generation with clickwheel and monochrome screen.
your last sentence makes me think Duke has a thing for monochrome displays and spinning interfaces
Was that with Lisa Huettel?
Yes! Awesome Prof.
My playdate has been collecting dust since I got it and the initial few games I tried didn't stick. Any suggestions on good games for it?
In the end, my personal favorite game was selling it on ebay
In that game, the house always wins.
The house gets their cut, to be sure.
Checkout playdate season 2 roster of games. Each one is the kind of game I hoped would be in season 1. I did not dislike season 1 though.
I just got The Moon Is Our Friend and I think it's a perfect Playdate game, at least for the kind of games I like to play on it (I don't care much for the more RPG/story-driven stuff). It's addicting, and it uses the crank in a way that makes the crank feel indispensable.
https://play.date/games/the-moon-is-our-friend/
I also discovered the Mirror app and it turns out it's a big deal for me! I love the form factor of the device and I'm fine with a black and white concept, but the combination of screen size and the lack of a backlight does take some enjoyment out of it all that Mirror gave back.
My sister made rhythm game Otto's Galactic Groove so you should totally check that out: https://play.date/games/ottos-galactic-groove/
Diora, Carte Blanche, Devils on The Moon, Match-O-3000, just to name a few off the top of my head.
The Playdate looks like what you'd make if someone only described the games kids made and shared on the TI-83 graphing calculator and then asked you to build a device.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
It fits, in my head, very much in that same toy niche as Teenage Engineering's Pocket Operator series of music making devices: https://teenage.engineering/products/po
Teenage Engineering designed the Playdate, in case you didn’t know: https://teenage.engineering/designs/playdate
It’s for Gen-X dads to buy and pay themselves on the back about “productive constraints” while they play games that suck.
Hey man, I was just trying to invent an excuse to buy one and you had to do that. Well … played.
He's wrong. There are some great games that I've played on it. And I'm a Millennial dad. AND I think Panic is a cool company that's worth supporting, AND I think that, if you have the money sitting around, it's probably good to support weird niche hardware projects by indies.
It’s a wonderful device and I own one but lack of screen backlight makes it practically unusable, and at its price point almost vulgarly expensive.
God knows how much I wanted to use and love it but it just started gathering dust in a closet after a week because of this.
If it had a backlight, I would have bought one by now.
Unfortunately, that type of screen cannot be backlit. There are frontlit versions, but they are thicker and would consume a bit more power.
Sometimes I concede on this point with certain devices, but the screen on the playdate basically requires light at a specific angle for it to be at all discernible, so I don't blame you and can't recommend it as a result
A kind of tintype display.
Do not buy one. You will regret it. Without backlight, it's a gimmick.
I love the aesthetic of the playdate, the educational outreach, and how easy the whole platform is. It’s just so well designed all around. But the only way I am able to play it is by casting the screen to my computer, the screen is so tiny. Otherwise, I love it.
I am using mine WAY more now that I know this app exists.
How do you do the screen casting?
https://help.play.date/games/mirror/ - probably this.
The Playdate seems an ideal device for busy dads and mums who would pick it up to play a few games here and there and are into programming and maybe would like to teach their kids how to program. I've had a quick play with the tools and API Panic provides and they seem very, very good. The games on it seem to be ideal for short stints of gameplay and are made by some very creative folk.
This seems to be the ideal target audience for a device like this, however at around £250 including delivery here in the UK it's wildly expensive and falls well outside the 'frivolous expense once in a while' range for most parents (I'd say it would be a stretch at £150). I find that really strange, are these just economies of scale or is it a business decision Panic has made and now likely regrets?
The Playdate is... limited though; it's very small, much smaller than e.g. the gameboy or DS, so it's not particularly ergonomic. Fine for playing around with on occasion, but it's not a platform for spending long hours with. And it made the same mistake as the GBA did - no backlight.
It does not feel like good value for money. But then, it's positioned as a niche / quirky device, manufactured in batches once a year or so, not a mass market device.
I do hope they build a follow-up some day though - make it twice as big (at least), add a backlight, make turning it off more obvious, and give more clarity about the availability and cost of games.
For a Masters program it's pretty weird but I assume prospective students will be aware, and they move on to learning Unreal, so...
It's always struck me as a bit silly how so many schools use some very niche tooling as part of "simplifying" or "adding constraints". I would have thought that such stuff was kept at the undergrad level. Even DigiPen (where the "famous" undergrad CS-like degree has you writing your own engine (though used to also have an elective for GBA games)) has a separate newer game design degree that had classes mandating some crappy in-house engine or in later years joining teams with students from the other degrees and using someone's custom engine. When I was there, a friend was able to get a professor's exception one semester and allowed to use a mobile-first engine that got out of the way and let him design while also making it easy to add polish, easy to playtest and develop (it used Lua) and show or give to others since everyone has a phone, etc. The crappy in-house engine stymied the efforts of everyone else, and only ran on Windows. It took a while longer before the formal curriculum had other students allowed to move beyond the in-house crap to consider things like the entire field of mobile games and mobile design, VR games and design, and eventually learning industry-standard tooling that employers will expect familiarity with. (I think the courtesy of using an industry engine was extended to the main degree program too vs. continuing with a custom one; I'm not sure what ratio Unreal/Unity/Godot/other/custom have there these days.) And while last I've heard an in-house engine is still used at the beginning (and even replaced the second semester "make a game in pure C with only the Windows text console for 'rendering'" project), it's a rewrite of a successor and apparently isn't as crappy now.
For the Playdate itself, I've never seen the appeal... I have no interest in going back to that sort of screen. My Game Boy Color, besides having color, also allowed me to have a wormlight attachment plugged in to make up somewhat for not having a backlight. I don't think the Playdate has support for that. And the price...
The article makes it quite clear as you read that the appeal is the constraints, it allows the students to think outside of the box, and ask themselves a lot of interesting questions
That's the intention, sure, and as long as prospective Masters students know that's what they're getting into and paying for, and are looking forward to it, then it's fine or whatever. But it still strikes me as a silly constraint, just as it would be to require an in-house engine that sucks, or requiring students to develop for some old Nintendo hardware, or requiring students to fit everything in under 96k.[0] Anyone can add arbitrary constraints to anything, and lots of interesting questions will arise from figuring out how to deal with (or work around) such constraints. But is the constraint to develop for this specific device (and all the sub constraints that implies) actually a good one vs. any other set of constraints, especially for the purposes of game design? I doubt it. Especially how some of the constraints like only using black-and-white graphics are easily enforced without also requiring such a specific niche device.
[0] .kkrieger (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NBG-sKFaB0) is my favorite of this genre of constraints, but it's mainly impressive for being possible at all (and you can read up on some of the developer notes for how much effort was put into satisfying this constraint). It didn't actually advance the design of FPSes or anything, and FPS design ideas could be better learned by making and iterating on an FPS without the tiny size constraint. If students want to impose extra constraints on themselves, like developing for the Playdate and making use of its crank for game control, go for it, but it's a bit different when they're imposed from the outside for no real reason other than "hey, it's some constraints, and constraints breed creativity".
No, because the goal of the university is to teach students to think. Not necessarily just to "acquire the skills to apply in industry". Constraints are great for that.
So is teaching them assembly, even though most people no longer directly code in ASM. But a constrained language that's close-to-the-metal gives them an interesting view of how computing really works, etc
So I'd say it's actually much better for a class teaching coding and creativity
This is part of a 2 year Masters program focused on Game Design, Development & Innovation, costing a student $113,000 to pursue. If a student enrolls in it without already having learned how to think, this is not the program that is going to teach that. Surely any competent school can teach students how to think within the first year, if they do not already know how to think, leaving the rest of the years (and any Masters or PhD programs) able to assume that the students already know how to think and thus save the time to teach actual content.
If students sign up and pay for a class you teach called "Data Structures & Algorithms", and you just read from Hamming's book every lecture and don't actually attempt to teach any data structures and algorithms, expect to not have a teaching job for long.
Learning to code for Unity is the easy part, learning to build great architecture, optimize resources, create a creative game is the hard stuff
If it's so easy, all the better. You can learn to build great architecture, optimize resources, and create a creative game all while also using Unity. There are additional bonuses to this beyond the pure knowledge too.
I mean it's all there in the text... it's for the introductory class "in an introductory class focused on game design fundamentals, students can’t afford a long learning curve."
I ran a design school for eight years where fourteen-year-olds built real projects—wearable medical devices, robotic systems, public art installations—in two-week studio cycles. No grades, portfolio-based assessment, and a structured constraint I designed that did exactly what the Playdate is doing here.
It was a two-sentence writing assignment. Before you could describe your project, you had to state the idea in one sentence (the soul) and the concrete form in one sentence (the body). Kids who could prototype a working medical device in two weeks couldn't articulate what they'd built. The constraint forced the thinking the tool couldn't.
Jach's argument—"you could impose the same constraints on Unity"—misses the point. You could. Nobody does. The tool shapes the behavior. An engine that can do anything invites you to do everything. Or, for young people, nothing. A 1-bit screen with a crank asks you one question: what's the game? That's not an arbitrary constraint. That's a design decision about where the student's cognitive effort goes.
The expensive tool teaches the tool. The constrained tool teaches the thinking. They're both necessary but they serve different stages, and most programs only do the first one.
Agree with the niche-ness, for me this would be big red flag, especially in education.
For teaching, it depends a lot on what you’re trying to teach. In some courses I’m involved in we’re intentionally using old, limited, obtuse or otherwise just strange tools and equipment for the sake of practicing debugging, reading specs approaching an unknown system. The point of those courses is not to learn the tool itself but to learn methodology that can be generalised.
As I said however, it depends on when in the timeline we’re looking. For 3-year bachelor’s programmes, there’s significantly more focus on producing graduates who can move straight into the industry, having already learnt the tools they will use. For theoretical 5-year master’s programmes, knowing specific hardware or software is secondary to the general reasoning, maths and planning that’s expected in research or R&D industry work.
Using more limited or restricted tools, if thought out well, can force students focus on the parts that matter. I haven’t actually used the Playdate, but for first-year students I would think the most important thing is to actually get to designing games. The core ideas you’d want to teach do not require fancy graphics or platform support, rather, that’d just be a time sink. Learning industry tools can be done in later courses or on the job. While being able to work efficiently is important - I don’t want to discredit the handiwork of the process, learning what buttons to push in eg. Unreal is arguably much less ephemeral than learning ”game design”.
However, using limited tools in teaching must be well motivated. Forcing old, obsolete tech onto students might be a learning experience just as well as a time sink.
I've thought something like a software archeology class would be really fun as an elective. I agree that it can make sense to use intentionally limited things especially if something is hard to teach otherwise. e.g. Learning to parse datasheets and probe things with an oscilloscope is best done by actually doing it, but starting off with an n-layer PCB instead of a breadboard would be pretty crazy. A benefit to using old things can sometimes be useful simplicity but also sometimes just being cheap. There's also a lot of interesting (if often commercially and methodologically irrelevant these days) things to teach as a matter of history.
I agree it all needs to be well motivated. I'm often suspicious of attempts to teach things indirectly, but of course a lot of indirect learning happens anyway. And a lot (direct and indirect) is done in parallel and I think it's useful to look for places to usefully exploit that, especially when it comes to the conflict of college for pre-job-training vs. study. Do you really need a limited or obscure platform to teach or practice most things about debugging? printf and any debugger tool that supports break points and stepping would teach a lot, with modern (even graphical) tools having a lot less friction while not dampening what is learned. Bonus points if you actually teach more advanced debuggers so another generation of developers isn't released thinking only-the-basics console gdb + printf are the extent of what's available to help in the practice of debugging. A danger of only teaching limited or restricted tools is that students end up thinking that's all there is. This happens at every level from sorting algorithms to programming languages to whole ways of thinking about things. By artificially constraining the box in an attempt to focus on something basic or avoid clichés of other boxes, all too often the result is just that thinking doesn't generalize and is now crippled in the constrained box.
Timeline is important, I wonder if we're both interpreting Master's program quite differently here. In the US, a Bachelors program is typically 4 years while a Masters is typically 2, and many Masters are industry-oriented (no thesis, just classes/projects) rather than being like a stepping stone to full PhD research. The Duke program here seems to work as typical: 2 years + capstone project (and even seeming to require a summer internship). A longer program is in some ways a bit more forgivable for less than ideal teaching efficiency. (At my old school, the game design undergrads had a course that required designing physical board games. There are plausible arguments that board games as a medium make it easier to teach or focus on important things in design that are harder to teach with digital video games. But even if that's not really true (as I'm arguing here applies to the Playdate not being particularly useful over just normal PC/mobile development) at least it's just one course in many for the whole program. And at least there's a >$10bn market for board games.)
The Playdate features a mic, accelerometer, and crank as unique inputs, as well as being portable, that can suggest interesting game design ideas on their own. In one sense, if you want to use those features, it's simpler because you can count on them being there. In another sense, except for I guess the crank, the other two inputs are part of ~every phone and widely available on any PC/laptop. Developing for PC or mobile gives you access to even more interesting input and output for design consideration too: keyboards, mice (with/without scrollwheels), cameras, haptic feedback, gyroscopes, touch, light or temperature sensors, weird whatever devices over USB or wireless (Nintendo wiimotes, steering wheels, arcade sticks), networking... and making use of these things has never been easier, with drivers widely available and especially with the engines that let you click around to configure things. I would think that if your goal is to learn game design, you would want to prioritize doing your design on a platform that is as open and flexible as possible to allow exploring as much of design space as you can. Perhaps the teacher thinks it's useful to add artificial constraints to narrow the design space or focus from a certain perspective (like: let's design a multiplayer game, but with the constraint that you have only one device, no networking or multiple controllers), fine, but they don't need to start with a platform where those constraints are baked in to start with and can't be lifted.
Similarly Unreal as well as any of the other popular engines, along with any of the libraries like DirectX, SDL, raylib, pygame, or even just the web browser with HTML Canvas, are all open and flexible in what they allow you to explore in design space. Some are more limited than others (like you're going to have a hard time using a 2D-focused library or engine for a 3D game) and some are easier to express ideas in than others (you're going to have a better time using a 2D-focused library or engine for a 2D game) but they're all pretty easy to express basics in, and they all are pretty good at letting you rapidly prototype and playtest and iterate. If you artificially impose on yourself the same constraints as the Playdate has inherently, they can be even easier to use, and even easier yet if the teacher provides a template. Like browse the games on itch.io tagged with playdate, I don't think any would be particularly harder (and some may even be easier) to do in <random other tooling>. The article mentions it taking "months" to learn Unreal, which is true in some sense (it can be longer, especially if you don't already know C++), but false in another sense in that getting up and running is quick, any competent introduction will have the student getting something on screen and responding to their input within an hour. For the very basic stuff a typical Playdate game does it won't take that long to learn to do it with Unreal.
Another way of looking at it: take the "Owl Invasion" example from the article, "an endless wave-based action game with tower defense mechanics." Unlike the other game, there's no mention of using any of the unique inputs of the Playdate, so is there anything fundamentally unique about the Playdate that suggests such a game would be easier to develop for it vs. using an arbitrary other tool? Was there anything learned about game design from the experience that wouldn't have been learned otherwise? What if you had mandated the same visual constraints for resolution and (lack of) color but artificially? Was it useful to be forced to incorporate an owl somehow, vs. a rat, vs. a pirate, vs. having no restrictions? (This one perhaps, even creative writing workshops like to require something to incorporate, but this is more about trying to unblock creativity and avoid decision paralysis rather than directly learning some principle.) If the impact of using Playdate vs. something else is fairly arbitrary for accomplishing the teaching goals, then unless the student is particularly interested in Playdate on their own, it's more beneficial among several axes to use something else.
Panic had a booth at Portland Retro Gaming Expo last year, they were super nice and the Playdates were a lot of fun to play with. Nice to see that people are continuing to enjoy the console, the production process seemed like a nightmare.
Pretty much all playdate games could just be enjoyed in the browser. The only thing you're missing is the physical crank and honestly it's a little gimmicky.
I've been interested in these cute little things since they were first announced, but I still haven't pulled the trigger on the 229 USD price tag. Apparently with the education discount they're 195 USD, which still feels steep. But hey, given that the dev tooling is all free (including simulators), it would be fine to play around with game development even without buying the hardware.
I played with mine for a couple months, put it down for a year, and played it for a couple more months recently. There are some good games and the device just oozes fun, I haven’t regretted it
Not to mention that they just announced season three of games!
I'm not familiar with their marketing/ecosystem. Do they gather together the best games and have a whole "season" you purchase? And repeat this every year?
They got a bunch of well known developers to build a collection of games, and deliver them to Playdate devices via wifi at a pace of 2 games per week (unless you choose to skip ahead). Season one is included with the device itself, so if you even if you didn't buy or sideload any other games, you still get new games for 3 months. Season two was $39 for 12 games.
You can choose not to look up which games are included in the season and just be surprised by new games every week, and that kept the console feeling fresh. But the really brilliant part is that you got to experience the new games together with other people who got the season at the same time as you, similar to people watching the same weekly broadcast of some TV show. I find this community aspect of the experience most interesting.
Very cute, but $229 is a WILD price point.
Yeah, I've thought about buying one in the past, but $229 is kind of rich for my blood.
I bought an ODROID-Go Ultra a few months ago for about $70. This can emulate the NES, SNES, Genesis, Game Boy, and oodles of other consoles, and can play what are arguably some of the best games ever made. The Playdate is three times that price, and while I'm sure that some of the games are fun, I would have a hard time believing that any of them are beating Donkey Kong Country or Phantasy Star IV.
It might be an apples and oranges comparison, but in my mind they still occupy a similar niche.
If its any solace the screen is very good and the build quality is very high. You also just get a good set of games "for free" as part of the system.
I do think it's beyond "impulse buy" for sure, though.
Yea, you could get a similar experience (for some definition of similar) with Pico-8 which is also a constrained system.
Even better, the creator supports educators super cheap
https://www.lexaloffle.com/pico-8.php?page=schools
Yea, it's not custom hardware, but you can share your creations with everyone since it runs on Web, Mac, Windows, Linux, Android, iOS and there are lots of cheaper devices that will run it if you want a handheld.
Also mentioning Lexaloffle’s most recent project the Picotron which is a fantasy workstation instead of just a console.
https://www.lexaloffle.com/picotron.php
With no technical upper limit on file size (as well as being able to export for other OSes) you could, in theory, publish a full game from this.
Isn't it a bit like uxn at that point?
It's very low volume, sadly this was unavoidable I think, given the extremely custom nature of the input
I was thinking the same. Read the article, thought about getting one and then thought again
It's actually worth it if you have any kind of a commute. There are a lot of very fun games for it. And it's nice having a thing that isn't connected to the Internet to avoid the temptation of doom scrolling.
I bought mine pre release so it was like $50 cheaper even with the cover I think, but I would still pay the increased price for it. I thought it would collect dust, but it really is a great way to pass the time on the train. It scratches the original Gameboy itch for me without the needless stares from actually carrying a Gameboy.
I just wish they would release the docking station for it. I charge it next to my bed, so it could serve two purposes.
Any game recommendations? You may have convinced me
we enjoyed Lucas Pope's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_After_Midnight
Ok, this is it. Consider me convinced
You'd farm more aura with an ereader on the train
Bought mine for $179 when they were new, hadn’t realized the price went up so much.
tariffs!
In my time at Duke, we used iPods in Pratt. And then in CS, we used Alice for complete beginners. This was in '06. Fun times.